Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

And thanks again for the thoughtful comments. BTW, I don't mind sarcasm, so you don't have to apologize for it. You seem to be a serious theorist, and an off-hand comment just adds a little flavor as far as I'm concerned. I only walk away if there isn't anything at all of substance being discussed.

comingfrom wrote:The densities of the plasma on the Sun are not so easy to corroborate.

Not directly, but we can study the photons, and then observe the fluid dynamic behaviors (which are non-Newtonian). To whatever extent the solar observations overlap with laboratory science, that's good stuff.

comingfrom wrote:But one thing I thought was plain, plasmas are way less dense than solids and liquids, let alone atoms pressed side by side.

The average density of the Sun is 1408 kg/m3, which is roughly 20 times the density of liquid hydrogen. So it's a study of plasmas at extreme temperatures, pressures, & densities.

comingfrom wrote:...the same standard model tells us the interplanetary medium sums to neutral.

comingfrom wrote:You won't change your model until you become convinced of inflows, and interstellar currents.

That's correct. For me, it's not enough to just say that those currents could be there. I'm going to ask, "What would be the expectations if those currents were there? And can we see the evidence?" IMO, the expectations aren't being met.

comingfrom wrote:I linked inflow papers for you. Did you not read them?

I can't remember -- do you still have the links handy?

comingfrom wrote:In Alfven's model, as I understand it, and maybe I'm wrong, a double layer is two layers of electric field between regions of like charge.

A typical double layer is one of each sign of charge. For example, the top of the thunderstorm is positively charged, and this attracts any negative charges in the vicinity, setting up a secondary layer opposite to the charge in the thunderstorm. So that's a double-layer.

And thanks again for the thoughtful comments. BTW, I don't mind sarcasm, so you don't have to apologize for it. You seem to be a serious theorist, and an off-hand comment just adds a little flavor as far as I'm concerned. I only walk away if there isn't anything at all of substance being discussed.

Glad you take it so well. I apologized to soften it, since some might have taken offence.

The average density of the Sun is 1408 kg/m3, which is roughly 20 times the density of liquid hydrogen. So it's a study of plasmas at extreme temperatures, pressures, & densities.

The average density.

One has to remember how dense the core must be in their model, for the fusion to occur. (1.622 x 105 kg/m3)

That leaves densities in the radiative and convection zones (most of the Sun) from 20 g/cm3 to 0.2 g/cm3.One source: Utah University

For comparison, the Earth's atmosphere is 1.2 kg/m3. check[Deleted my comment. Just realized, I was thrown by the different dimensions. They do that so we can't easily make direct comparisons, don't they?]

That's correct. For me, it's not enough to just say that those currents could be there. I'm going to ask, "What would be the expectations if those currents were there? And can we see the evidence?" IMO, the expectations aren't being met.

All the papers I read are talking about them.Voyager data is full of them (NASA calls them roads and highways).I can even see the inflows when I watch videos of the Sun.There are papers about observed inflows.

(Note: I don't particularly agree with much of what they say in those papers, but they're good for the data.)

Not much of the inflows can be observed, because the corona and chromosphere are so rarefied the inflows generally don't bring a lot of plasma with them.

A typical double layer is one of each sign of charge. For example, the top of the thunderstorm is positively charged, and this attracts any negative charges in the vicinity, setting up a secondary layer opposite to the charge in the thunderstorm. So that's a double-layer.

That isn't my double layer.

My double layers form sheaths around currents, and clouds, and plasma cells, and between the layers which are your double layers. My double layers are what is holding your double layers in place, and preventing them from equalizing.

After receiving that correction on densities in the Sun, I see your model fitting in nicely with the standard model.

As we go into the Sun, and the densities increase until electron shells begin to overlap, the result is ionization. But when the densities increase above that, the protons fuse, having nowhere else they can go.Going to the center of the core, we have larger and larger elements present, as the pressure increases.

It sounds logical, but I can't believe it.I think they are guessing the reported densities.

comingfrom wrote:One has to remember how dense the core must be in their model, for the fusion to occur. (1.622 x 105 kg/m3)

Yes, but I can't get there -- I don't think that the core is that dense, even though I have much heavier elements in the core, and I don't think that there is any nuclear fusion going on there. The heavy elements have settled to the bottom, and while the pressure is sufficient for hydrogen fusion, it isn't even close to the pressure needed to fuse heavier elements. So I reject the "fusion furnace" model.

comingfrom wrote:

The IPM has a slight net positive charge.

And that's enough to rip electrons away from the Sun?

I'm saying that the Sun has a net negative charge, while the IPM has a net positive charge. There is little electrical resistance in plasmas at that temperature, so the only thing holding the electrons down is gravity, and gravity is no match for the electric force.

comingfrom wrote:All the papers I read are talking about [inflows].

Inflows, coming from less than 5 solar radii, and typically occurring within just a couple of days of a CME, don't surprise me. There are some rather dramatic videos of "coronal rain" immediately after CMEs that I take as further evidence that the Sun has a net negative charge, since the "rain" is clearly +ions (especially highly ionized iron), which is unmistakable given the absorption frequencies. But that doesn't make it an interstellar electric current.

In the near perfect vacuum of the IPM, I'd expect charged particles responding to an electric field to get accelerated to a substantial percentage of the speed of light. At such speeds, the magnetic pinch effect would be robust, and the currents would get pinched into discrete discharge channels, which would be highly visible, like lightning, or like the discrete discharge channels in a plasma ball lamp. And we don't see anything of the sort.

That model also has a big problem establishing a current regulator, to prevent all of the potential from being eliminated instantaneously.

comingfrom wrote:Not much of the inflows can be observed, because the corona and chromosphere are so rarefied the inflows generally don't bring a lot of plasma with them.

What's flowing inward, if not plasma?

Cheers!

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

comingfrom wrote:I see your model fitting in nicely with the standard model.

I'm not so sure...

comingfrom wrote:As we go into the Sun, and the densities increase until electron shells begin to overlap, the result is ionization.

Yes.

comingfrom wrote:But when the densities increase above that, the protons fuse, having nowhere else they can go.

I don't think that the densities increase above that. Once the electrons are squeezed out, there is an electrostatic repulsion between the atoms that prevents further compression, and which is a respectable force -- gravity is no match for the electric force. So I don't think that the Sun has enough gravitational loading for nuclear fusion in the core. If it did, it would create a Type Ia supernova, because once the fusion started, there wouldn't be anything to stop it. So here we have to remember that Eddington's "fusion furnace" model was developed in the 1920s, before nuclear fusion was discovered. Now that we know the precise properties of it, we can say with certainty that there isn't any sustained nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun.

comingfrom wrote:Going to the center of the core, we have larger and larger elements present, as the pressure increases.

I don't think that those heavy elements were fused because of the pressure, because nuclear physics doesn't allow it. Rather, the heavy elements already existed, and now they're resting comfortably inside the Sun.

comingfrom wrote:I think they are guessing the reported densities.

They are absolutely guessing. I am too, except that I constrain the solution domain to what laboratory physics allows. Their model is based entirely on the ideal gas laws, and makes no mention of the Coulomb barrier, which laboratory physics requires.

comingfrom wrote:The fusion is occurring were we observe it, on the surface.

I agree, but I also think that fusion occurs deeper within the convective zone -- not because of pressure, but because of the acceleration of electrons to near the speed of light in arc discharges. Where they slam into stationary matter at the ends of the channels, they instantaneously create the pressures & temperatures necessary for fusion. This has been verified, by the gamma rays that can only be produced by fusion, and by the sudden appearance of fusion by-products, such as carbon, nitrogen, & oxygen, all in proportions expected by nuclear physics.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Since we're in the niami section, have you two [CC/cf] ever looked at the siddhi models? Both ends of the size spectrum agree about an almost infinitely dense ether, veiwed on the large scale the universe is made of miniscule mercury like spheres of almost infinite density, which we percieve as the voids between the galaxies, on the small scale the ether is indivisible, and what we perceive as matter is all made of charges which are formed as micro-bubbles in the ether [every one of which has infinite connectivity to the ether], rather like the bubbles in water caused by ultrasound. Where the 'mercury bubbles' touch torsion fields are set up in the ether as they spin against one another, at our scale those torsion feilds are superluminal and i guess the birkland current plasma tubes are generated in their wake. Kozyrevs work on torsion fields indicates double layers in the ether similar to Don Scotts recent work on planetary spacing.If the sun is being 'fed' energy i suspect it comes through torsion field dynamics in the ether and is invisible except it must somehow affect spin. [since it seems fluid dynamics are the key] http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/ visions of the large i've only ever seen in books.

John, Charles' model doesn't consider the Sun as being fed energy from outside, but from inside. When stars first form, the energy from outside is fed to them all at once and is held as potential energy (in electric double-layers or CFDLs) until it's released gradually.

Charles, you said: I'm saying that the Sun has a net negative charge, while the IPM has a net positive charge. There is little electrical resistance in plasmas at that temperature, so the only thing holding the electrons down is gravity, and gravity is no match for the electric force.

I think you should mention the Sun's positive outer layer as also attracting the negative charge. I guess it's only when electrons reach the surface of the photosphere that most of them leisurely float away at first, mainly due to the heat.

THERMONUCLEAR EXPLOSIONSYou mentioned fusion on the Sun due to electrons in solar electric discharges slamming into matter at the ends of discharge channels. You've also stated elsewhere that high velocity impacts of meteorites on planets causes thermonuclear explosions and I think that means they produce fusion products too. Is that correct? I'm having a discussion with someone on the CNPS forum who thinks impacts would not produce thermonuclear explosions, because he doesn't think there are fusion products, like radioactive elements. I told him about the Wolfe Creek impact crater in Australia, which is said to have excessive U, Th and K40. Have you found out what fusion products are likely produced by impacts? Would most of them be radioactive or not? Do you know of sources of relevant data?

Lloyd wrote:You've also stated elsewhere that high velocity impacts of meteorites on planets causes thermonuclear explosions and I think that means they produce fusion products too. Is that correct? I'm having a discussion with someone on the CNPS forum who thinks impacts would not produce thermonuclear explosions, because he doesn't think there are fusion products, like radioactive elements. I told him about the Wolfe Creek impact crater in Australia, which is said to have excessive U, Th and K40. Have you found out what fusion products are likely produced by impacts? Would most of them be radioactive or not? Do you know of sources of relevant data?

Any thermonuclear explosion at the surface is going to vaporize everything involved, so I wouldn't expect any data. Radioactive elements in the ground wouldn't prove that the impact itself exploded, much less in nuke mode. I suppose that if you took a sledgehammer and beat on a rock long enough, you'd find some radioactive isotopes in the rock somewhere, just by jostling stuff around enough to get some random atomic events in there -- no nuke required. So I'm not sure that radioactive elements in the ground, or absence thereof, would constitute proof either way.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

I'm saying that the Sun has a net negative charge, while the IPM has a net positive charge. There is little electrical resistance in plasmas at that temperature, so the only thing holding the electrons down is gravity, and gravity is no match for the electric force.

I believe the electrons, and protons and cations, are propelled away from the Sun by his electric field.I read somewhere in the EU literature that the Solar wind particles are still accelerating at 1 AU.

Inflows, coming from less than 5 solar radii, and typically occurring within just a couple of days of a CME, don't surprise me. There are some rather dramatic videos of "coronal rain" immediately after CMEs that I take as further evidence that the Sun has a net negative charge, since the "rain" is clearly +ions (especially highly ionized iron), which is unmistakable given the absorption frequencies. But that doesn't make it an interstellar electric current.

Interstellar currents are stopped at (or collected by) by the heliospere boundary.

In the present model, charge is collected by and builds up in a sphere, and discharges to the sphere below.(the double layer between has a breakdown)

In the near perfect vacuum of the IPM, I'd expect charged particles responding to an electric field to get accelerated to a substantial percentage of the speed of light. At such speeds, the magnetic pinch effect would be robust, and the currents would get pinched into discrete discharge channels, which would be highly visible, like lightning, or like the discrete discharge channels in a plasma ball lamp. And we don't see anything of the sort.

Thunderbolts & EU people say the solar wind does accelerate to substantial percentage of c.

In vacuum tubes, one needs a dense gas to get the bright arc channel. Near vacuum rarefied gases produce columns of coronal glows.

That model also has a big problem establishing a current regulator, to prevent all of the potential from being eliminated instantaneously.

I don't think that the densities increase above that. Once the electrons are squeezed out, there is an electrostatic repulsion between the atoms that prevents further compression, and which is a respectable force -- gravity is no match for the electric force. So I don't think that the Sun has enough gravitational loading for nuclear fusion in the core. If it did, it would create a Type Ia supernova, because once the fusion started, there wouldn't be anything to stop it. So here we have to remember that Eddington's "fusion furnace" model was developed in the 1920s, before nuclear fusion was discovered. Now that we know the precise properties of it, we can say with certainty that there isn't any sustained nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun.

That is not fusion by an energy input, but by pressure. Just like your ionization isn't by energy input, but by pressure.

It would be convenient if the pressure only goes to what your theory needs.

Of course, I agree with that there is no fusion within the Sun, since we can observe that it happens on the surface.Seems to me, that internal ionization occurs is just as big a supposition as supposing internal fusion occurs.

I don't think that those heavy elements were fused because of the pressure, because nuclear physics doesn't allow it. Rather, the heavy elements already existed, and now they're resting comfortably inside the Sun.

Nuclear synthesis is occurring on the photosphere surface, where we observe the fusion occurring.

They are absolutely guessing. I am too, except that I constrain the solution domain to what laboratory physics allows. Their model is based entirely on the ideal gas laws, and makes no mention of the Coulomb barrier, which laboratory physics requires.

My guess is that the photosphere is well above the rock surface.

Like as in Crook's tubes, we don't see the positive column resting upon the cathode surface. Do we?

I agree, but I also think that fusion occurs deeper within the convective zone -- not because of pressure, but because of the acceleration of electrons to near the speed of light in arc discharges. Where they slam into stationary matter at the ends of the channels, they instantaneously create the pressures & temperatures necessary for fusion. This has been verified, by the gamma rays that can only be produced by fusion, and by the sudden appearance of fusion by-products, such as carbon, nitrogen, & oxygen, all in proportions expected by nuclear physics

Wow. Accelerating to near light speed within the body of the Sun.

The atoms were so tight shoulder to shoulder that they squeezed their outer electrons off. Then those electrons had the freedom of movement to accelerate to near c?And then, as the density was decreasing, on their way to surface, they suddenly slammed into a wall?

That's what you are saying, isn't it?I think that that verification can also be used verify the fusion is happening when and where we see it happening.

Thank you for your explanations, and patience.I'm trying them on. My comments are expressing the problems I still have with it.Paul

And where are these glowing columns? If they aren't powerful enough to see, why would they be powerful enough to light up the Sun? Why wouldn't they get consolidated into discrete discharge channels that would be as bright as the Sun itself?

comingfrom wrote:

That model also has a big problem establishing a current regulator, to prevent all of the potential from being eliminated instantaneously.

See Don Scott's paper on the Transistor Sun.

I have looked at it. And I raised serious questions. And those questions haven't been answered. IMO, if those questions could have been answered, they would have been.

comingfrom wrote:Seems to me, that internal ionization occurs is just as big a supposition as supposing internal fusion occurs.

No, there's a difference -- the "fusion furnace" model can be falsified. Of course, just because they're wrong doesn't make me right. But leaving something on the table that has already been falsified is just wasting time.

comingfrom wrote:Nuclear synthesis is occurring on the photosphere surface, where we observe the fusion occurring.

I agree.

comingfrom wrote:Wow. Accelerating to near light speed within the body of the Sun.

Yes. Lightning in the Earth's atmosphere, which is thicker than the plasma on the surface of the Sun, gets up to 1/10 the speed of light, and that's in less than 10 km of travel. Discharges on the Sun can be thousands of kilometers long, in more rarefied plasma.

comingfrom wrote:The atoms were so tight shoulder to shoulder that they squeezed their outer electrons off. Then those electrons had the freedom of movement to accelerate to near c?And then, as the density was decreasing, on their way to surface, they suddenly slammed into a wall?

The gravitational loading necessary for compressive ionization doesn't occur until you get down to 120,000 km below the surface of the Sun. The entire convective zone is 200,000 km deep, so that's more than halfway down into the convective zone. Below 120,000 km from the surface, the hydrogen & helium is an incompressible supercritical fluid. It's positively charged because of the extreme pressure, and it's incompressible because of the Coulomb force between the like-charged atoms. And I haven't identified any source of energy below that level. So it's all in the topmost 120,000 km.

Cheers!

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Negative means less than zero.Nothing has less than zero charge, so the mainstream nomenclature fails us.

But to me, the Sun is obviously very charged.It has a very large net charge well above zero.

while the IPM has a net positive charge

If, on the other hand, by negative, you mean the lesser charge, creating the negative potential, then you are saying the IPM is more charged than the Sun.

Radiance is a good indication of how charged something is, wouldn't you say?I find, just by correcting my English when trying to describe the mechanics behind observations, already many thing come into better (more logical) perspective.

The simple model with no broken English:The Sun is highly charged, as are all stars. That's why they shine.How? Charge coming from the Galactic core is continuously pouring in.Electrons and protons, and charged and uncharged atoms, are swept along in the currents of charge.Because baryons also recycle charge, even as the Sun is recycling charge, complex interactions happen within the flows, and at surfaces where the baryons cannot pass through.The frequencies and resonance of charge plays an important role in how it behaves.

Resonant charge will be absorbed and non resonant charge is reflected.This is what creates the appearance of attractions and repulsions at the macro levels.This absorption versus reflection is what sets up the double layer between regions of different resonant charges.

I won't go on, but I'm just demonstrating how I theorize. I don't allow oxymoronic terms.

Just by having the term "negative charge" everyone is thrown onto the wrong foot from the first word.Because there can be no such thing as less than zero charge.

This could be a big reason why charge is little understood.How will we understand charge while confidently proclaiming things can be negatively charged?Even something as positively charged as the Sun.

You see? By "positively", I mean the normal English meaning for the word positively, not the scientific electrical meaning.

The small, but relatively constant, accelerating voltage gradient beyond the corona is responsible for accelerating the solar wind away from the Sun.

I can't find it now.I thought I remember reading it as something mainstream could not explain, how the Solar wind accelerates after it leaves the Sun. I can't remember what the percentage of speed of light was said to be.

In trying to search for it, I am seeing figures of between 380 and 700 km/s at 1AU.

The point was, at 1 AU the solar wind is going a lot faster than it is just outside the corona. And then it screeches to a halt at the heliosphere boundary.

And where are these glowing columns?

The photosphere is one. The corona is another.

Why wouldn't they get consolidated into discrete discharge channels that would be as bright as the Sun itself?

A certain density of baryons is required.It is when charge passes through baryons that some of the charge get excited to visible and higher wavelengths.

I have looked at it. And I raised serious questions. And those questions haven't been answered. IMO, if those questions could have been answered, they would have been.

Righto.That just jumped to my memory when you mentioned current regulator.

Different regions of charge, and their double layers, regulates the current.The earth and planets can only absorb so much, therefore the Sun doesn't do a big discharge on us, and equal all charge in the solar system.

No, there's a difference -- the "fusion furnace" model can be falsified. Of course, just because they're wrong doesn't make me right. But leaving something on the table that has already been falsified is just wasting time.

I agree.

Yes. Lightning in the Earth's atmosphere, which is thicker than the plasma on the surface of the Sun, gets up to 1/10 the speed of light, and that's in less than 10 km of travel. Discharges on the Sun can be thousands of kilometers long, in more rarefied plasma.

It's either denser than air, or more rarefied.

Shoulder to shoulder atoms isn't rarefied plasma to me.

The gravitational loading necessary for compressive ionization doesn't occur until you get down to 120,000 km below the surface of the Sun. The entire convective zone is 200,000 km deep, so that's more than halfway down into the convective zone. Below 120,000 km from the surface, the hydrogen & helium is an incompressible supercritical fluid. It's positively charged because of the extreme pressure, and it's incompressible because of the Coulomb force between the like-charged atoms. And I haven't identified any source of energy below that level. So it's all in the topmost 120,000 km.

Thank you. I might use that number for my distance from the bottom of the photosphere to the surface of the Sun.

Sounds as good as any.(I'm just having fun. In reality, I do not put a figure on it.)Paul

Negative means less than zero. Nothing has less than zero charge, so the mainstream nomenclature fails us.

You can stay hung up on that if you want, but I really don't think that it's a theoretical issue. You're right that charge (electrons or protons) is always a positive quantity, or zero, but never negative. But it's only a theoretical problem if you make it that way. Positive and negative are to the electric force the way north and south are to the magnetic force -- they're just labels. The north pole of a bar magnet isn't always facing north, but that doesn't make it a theoretical issue. I think that positive and negative are used for electric charges because they cancel each other out, just like positive and negative numbers. But if you feel that there is an issue, then refer to them as proton or electron charges, instead of positive and negative, and everybody will know what you mean.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

I am still new to this, and trying to understand.(about two years into my EU journey, and studying physics)

Nobody explains the electric field. Nobody really understands charge.Everybody is using them in their theories.And (almost) nobody has an issue that they are using screwed up language which only sort of explains, but doesn't really explain anything.

Does it seem such an unreasonable notion to suggest? that if we fix up our language, our misuse of words, then communication and explanations might become clearer.

I have another probably stupid question for Charles, looking at the image on your page 7909 of the suns layers, is it possible that the inner layers are suffused with hydrogen ions packed into a matrix of the other elements?